Sampradaya Institution

By Srila Bhakti Pramode Puri Goswami Maharaja

The sampradaya institution has existed in this holy land of Bharata since time immemorial. The word sampradaya is a passive nominal formation from the Sanskrit verb root, sam-pra-da (‘to hand down’). Lexicographers define it as ‘the instruction that is passed down in a line of spiritual masters.’ This is also called disciplic succession or guru parampara, and implies that such instruction in spiritual truth is passed down personally from teacher to disciple in a direct chain (srauta-parampara).

Other synonyms for this concept include amnaya, nigama, and the Veda. The great sage, Vyasadeva, uses the term amnaya in the Srimad Bhagavatam:

bharata-vyapadesena
amnayarthah pradarsitah

‘By means of the Mahabharata, I revealed the ancient knowledge of the Vedas as I received it through disciplic succession.’ (SB 1.4.29)

The word amnaya is derived from the verb root mna combined with the prefix a. Two definitions are given for this term: ‘that by which religious instruction is given’ or ‘that by which religious teachings are repeated over and over again.’

The same word is sometimes found preceded by the sam– prefix (samamnaya).1 Our most worshipable Srila Prabhupada has explained this term in his Gaudiya-bhasya to Caitanya-bhagavata (2.1.255):2

‘Srila Sridhara Svami explains the word samamnaya in his commentary to the Bhagavatam(10.47.33) as meaning the Veda. The most perfect teaching is the one that directs us to the supreme abode of Visnu. It is that which the sages have repeated over and over again, and that by which the supreme religious teaching is given.’

Visvanatha Cakravarti has defined samamnaya as complete knowledge (sampurno vedah). The wordveda is defined as that scripture which gives us knowledge of God and religion. It is explained as follows in the Vedanta: ‘that divine instruction or word of God that brings knowledge of dharma and Brahman into human society is called Veda.’3 Something similar is stated in the Puranas: ‘The Veda is the scripture that was spoken by Lord Brahma and explains dharma.’4

The root meaning of the word nigama is ’emanation’ because the four Vedas emanated from Lord Brahma’s four mouths. Another definition breaks the word down into two parts: the prefix ni– meaningnitaram or ‘forever’ and gama meaning ‘explain’ (from the causative form of the verb ‘to go’); thus the scripture that forever explains the supreme truth of Brahman is called nigama or Veda.

‘Brahma appeared as the first of all the gods. He created the universe and continues to protect the earth. He taught the knowledge of Brahman [that he had received from the Lord], which is the basis of all learning, to his oldest son Atharva.’ (Mundaka Upanisad 1.1.1)

‘The learned spiritual master who has realized Krsna should properly instruct the peaceful and self-controlled disciple in the knowledge of Brahman, i.e., knowledge combined with love for Krsna, by which he can be attained.’ (Mundaka Upanisad1.2.13)

The Srimad Bhagavatam is the essence of all the Veda and Vedanta. There, Krsna tells Uddhava,

‘In the course of time, the Vedic message was lost in the great flood of universal destruction. Then I once again spoke this religious knowledge about myself to Brahma, who told it to his oldest son Manu. Then Bhrgu and the seven great sages received it from him.'(SB 11.14.3-4)

This topmost religion related to the Lord himself has been kept intact to the present day through the institution of disciplic succession, the holy chain of the sampradaya. Outside of the sampradaya, it is difficult if not impossible to come into contact with these pure teachings. That is why the Padma Puranastates:

‘Any mantra that does not come in disciplic succession is considered to be fruitless. Therefore, four divine individuals will appear in the age of Kali to found disciplic schools. The founders of these four Vaisnava sampradayas are Laksmi or Sri, Brahma, Rudra and Sanaka Rishi, and the acaryas of the Kali Age who follow their lines will appear in the holy city of Purusottama in Orissa.’

The great Gaudiya acarya, Baladeva Vidyabhusana quotes these two verses in his book, Prameya-ratnavali, citing the Padma Purana as their source. In the 1927 edition of the Prameya-ratnavali, two commentaries were published: Kanti-mala by Krsnadeva Vedanta-vagisa and Prabha by Aksaya Kumara Sastri.5 Both these commentaries confirm that they come from the Padma Purana. Narahari Cakravarti (also known as Ghanasyama Dasaa), the son of Jagannatha Cakravarti, a disciple of Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, also quoted these two verses in his Bhakti-ratnakara (5.2111-2) and attributed them to the Padma Purana.

Finally, there is the testimony of Kavi Karnapura, also known as Puri Dasaa,6 the youngest son of Mahaprabhu’s intimate associate Sivananda Sena, who paid his obeisances to Mahaprabhu, calling him the ‘the family’s worshipable Deity’ (kuladhidaivata7). In his Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika (21-22), Karnapura both quotes a part of these verses and attributes it to the Padma Purana:

‘The founders of four sampradayas appeared in the Kali-yuga. According to thePadma Purana, they were Sri, Brahma, Rudra and Sanaka Rishi. There it is said, ‘Therefore the Vaisnavas, Sri, Brahma, Rudra and Sanaka Rsi, will appear in the Age of Kali to purify the world by establishing the four Vaisnava sampradayas.”

Gopala Guru Gosvami, an associate of Mahaprabhu and disciple of Vakresvara Pandita, also accepted this concept of the disciplic line and the principle of four distinct Vaisnava sampradayas.

In his translation and commentary on the Prameya-ratnavali, our most worshipable Srila Prabhupada had this to say about these verses: ‘The four Vaisnava disciplic lines trace their origins to these original spiritual masters: Laksmi, Brahma, Rudra and the four Kumaras: Sanaka, Sanatan, Sanandana, and Sanat Kumara. In the Age of Kali, four great founder-acaryas aligned themselves with these original spiritual preceptors and spread their teachings. Each of them began their preaching mission out of Purusottama-ksetra in Orissa. Mathas representing each of the four sampradayas had a strong presence in Puri as recently as a century ago. At certain times, one or the other of them becomes stronger and takes the lead in performing spiritual welfare work for the conditioned souls of this world.’

Our worshipable predecessor, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, also wrote on this subject in Jaiva Dharma(Chapter 13). There, in response to the question, ‘Why is there a disciplic succession?’ he writes:

‘In this world, many people are contaminated by the impersonalist doctrine and thus fall into a life of sin. If there were no disciplic succession, or institution of devotees free of this contamination, then it would be very difficult for ordinary people to find saintly association. This is why the Padma Purana tells us, ‘Any mantra that does not come in disciplic succession is considered to be fruitless. Therefore, four divine individuals will appear in the age of Kali to establish disciplic schools.’ Of these four schools, the oldest is the Brahma sampradaya. This disciplic succession has existed since the time of Lord Brahma and is still strong. Whatever scriptures—whether Veda, Vedanta or other—are taught in a particular school maintain their original form; no interpolations are possible in these texts. Thus there can be no doubt about the mantras that are found in the books of these ancient schools. Thus a disciplic succession of saintly persons is an absolute necessity for human society and that is why the institution has existed since the earliest times.’

Bhaktivinoda Thakura continues his discussion of the subject by asking the question, ‘Is the list of names of spiritual masters in the disciplic succession given without any breaks?’ His answer: ‘From time to time, only the more important spiritual masters’ names are included in these lists.’8

Every disciple has the duty to remember the names of the spiritual masters in his disciplic succession as a part of his daily meditation. This is confirmed by Baladeva Vidyabhusana in his Prameya-ratnavali(1.4):

‘The learned disciple should daily remember the entire flawless disciplic succession. From them comes single-minded devotion, and from such devotion, the pleasure of Lord Hari.’

Srila Prabhupada comments:

‘The disciple purifies his own character by hearing and discussing the exemplary lives of the previous spiritual masters. As his character is purified, he identifies himself as a servant of the pure devotees. He thus receives the blessings of the Lord to engage in bhajana without distractions. Narottama Dasaa Thakura says that Nityananda’s lotus feet are eternal, and the servant of Lord Nityananda is also eternal. When the living being abandons his materialistic way of thinking and takes shelter of the transcendental lotus feet of the spiritual master, he attains the eternal spiritual world and his greatest good.’ (Gaudiya-bhasya)

Baladeva gives the list of names of spiritual masters (pranali) in his disciplic succession in the Prameya-ratnavali:

‘I praise Sri Krsna, Brahma, Devarsi Narada and Vyasa; Madhvacarya Padmanabhacarya, Narahari, Madhava, Aksobhya, Jayatirtha, Jnanasindhu, Dayanidhi, Vidyanidhi, Rajendra, Jayadharma, Purusottama, Brahmanya, and Vyasa Tirtha. Then I worship with devotion Laksmipati and Madhavendra, whose disciples were Isvara Puri, Advaita Acarya, and Nityananda, who acted as spiritual masters to the universe. I worship Lord Caitanya, who became the disciple of Isvara Puri and saved the world with the gift of love for Krsna.’ (Prameya-ratnavali 1.7)

And Kavi Karnapura described the same Brahma sampradaya in a slightly different way in the Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika:

‘Brahma, the master of this universe, was the disciple of the lord of the spiritual world. His disciple was Narada and Vyasa became the disciple of Narada. Suka became the disciple of Vyasa through the awakening of spiritual knowledge from him. Madhvacarya took initiation in the Krsna mantra from Vyasa. His disciple was Padmanabhacarya, whose disciple was Narahari, who was followed by Madhava Dvija. Aksobhya was his disciple, then Jayatirtha, Jnanasindhu, Mahanidhi, Vidyanidhi and Rajendra followed. Jayadharma Muni was one of Rajendra’s many disciples and Visnu Puri, the author of Bhakti-ratnavali and Brahmanya Purusottama, became his disciples. Vyasa Tirtha, the author of Visnu-samhita was the disciple of Purusottama. Laksmipati Tirtha, a reservoir of devotion, was the disciple of Vyasa Tirtha. Madhavendra Puri was the disciple of Laksmipati, and it is by him that this religion was founded. His disciple, the sannyasi Isvara Puri, took up the mood of conjugal devotion, while Advaita Acarya [also the disciple of Madhavendra] took up the moods of servitude and friendship. Gaura accepted Isvara Puri as his guru, and then flooded the material and spiritual worlds [with love].'(Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika 23-32)9

Though there are some slight differences, one can see that these two accounts of the disciplic succession through Madhvacarya to Caitanya Mahaprabhu are substantially the same.10 Gopala Guru Gosvami accepted the same disciplic succession. Therefore, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote in hisMahaprabhura siksa,

‘[In the Tattva-sandarbha,] Srila Jiva Gosvami first established the authenticity of received knowledge, and then that the Puranas fall into this category of authoritative sources of knowledge. After that, he showed that the Srimad Bhagavatam was the most authoritative of all the Puranas. In order to prove the superiority of the Bhagavatam, he cited statements by Brahma, Narada, Vyasa and Sukadeva, as well as texts written by Vijayadharma, Brahmanya Tirtha, and Jagat Guru Madhvacarya. From all these statements, it is evident that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu belonged to the Brahma sampradaya, as it descends through Madhvacarya. Kavi Karnapura confirmed this line of disciplic succession in his Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika, and the writer of the commentary on the Vedanta, Baladeva Vidyabhusana, did so again in hisPrameya-ratnavali. Is there any doubt that those who do not accept this line of disciplic succession are the principal enemies of the followers of Caitanya Mahaprabhu?’

In the Gaudiya Vaisnava world today, there are a few short-sighted individuals who wish to disavow any connection to the Brahma-Madhva sampradaya and consider the Gaudiya disciplic succession to have come into being with Mahaprabhu himself. But we have to ask the question why Mahaprabhu accepted Madhavendra Puri into his spiritual lineage? Bhaktivinoda Thakura took up this question in hisMahaprabhura Siksa as well:

‘Nimbarka Acarya’s doctrine of ‘difference and non-difference’ (bhedabheda) was inadequate. With the advent of Lord Caitanya and his teachings, the Vaisnava world finally received this doctrine in its complete form. Madhvacarya accepted the idea of the Lord’s eternal form of consciousness and bliss (sac-cid-ananda-vigraha) and because this is the basis of theacintya-bhedabheda concept, Mahaprabhu accepted the disciplic line that came from Madhva.

‘Previously, the Vaisnava acaryas had some technical points of difference in their teachings and this resulted in the establishment of different religious schools. Only with the advent of the Supreme Truth himself in the form of Lord Caitanya, could the lacunae in these various doctrines be corrected as a result of his omniscience. Mahaprabhu combined Nimbarka’s ‘oneness in difference’ with the concept of the sac-cid-ananda-vigraha of the Supreme Lord found in Madhva’s teachings, Ramanuja’s concept of the Lord’s energy (sakti), Visnu Svami’s idea of purified non-dualism (suddhadvaita) and the dedication of the Lord to His own devotees (tadiya-sarvasvata). By this most scientific doctrine, which he named acintya-bhedabheda, Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu showered his mercy on the entire universe.

‘In a very short time, there will exist only one school of Vaisnava teaching, which will be named the Brahma sampradaya. All other Vaisnava schools will come into the fold of that one disciplic succession.’

Some modern researchers have not been able to find the verses attributed to the Padma Purana that have been quoted above and so conclude that they are interpolations. No doubt motivated by envy of the Vaisnava religion, they thus minimize the necessity for a disciplic succession instructed in these verses. But this understanding is completely illogical.

Our beloved spiritual master, who has now entered the eternal pastimes of the Lord, accepted the disciplic line given by Baladeva and the concept of the Bhagavata-parampara. This is the disciplic succession that we meditate on every single day. Some people do not wish to admit that Madhavendra Puri was ever a member of the Madhva sampradaya. On this matter, Srila Prabhupada had the following to say:

‘The disciplic succession of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas is the one given by Baladeva Vidyabhusana. The spiritual masters of the Madhva line are sannyasis in the single-staff (eka-dandi) tradition, most of whom take the title ‘Tirtha.’ They are generally given the name Sri Madhva, followed by their sannyasa name, and then the title, Tirtha. Madhavendra Puri was a sannyasi, but his title was ‘Puri.’ However, this does not mean that he could not have taken sannyasa in the Puri line of sannyasis and still have received Pancaratrika diksa in the Madhva line.

‘According to the Bhakti-ratnakara,11 Nityananda Prabhu was a disciple of Laksmipati Tirtha. All the acaryas of the main matha of the Tattvavadis of the Madhva sampradaya in Uttararadi (Udipi) have the Tirtha title. Thus some of the leaders of the Sahajiyas doubt the connection of the Gaudiyas to the Madhva line. But their doubts are a result of their own ignorance. For the most part, the descriptions of the disciplic succession found in Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika, in the works of Gopala Guru Gosvami, in the Bhakti-ratnakara and the Prameya-ratnavali are in agreement with each other.’

(The Gaudiya-bhasya to Prameya-ratnavali)

Laksmipati Tirtha was the thirteenth guru in descendance from Madhva, otherwise known as Ananda Tirtha. In the Bhakti-ratnakara, Nityananda Prabhu is said to have been his disciple, whereas thePrameya-ratnavali says that he took initiation from Madhavendra Puri. The one or two other discrepancies in these guru lists are of this type.

Baladeva Vidyabhushan’s lineage is further given as it follows on after Nityananda Prabhu: One of Nityananda Prabhu’s followers was Gauri Dasaa Pandita of Kalna, who in Krsna lila was one of the twelve Gopaas, Subala Sakha. Gauri Dasaa had a disciple named Hrdaya Caitanya, who in turn initiated Dukhi Krsna Dasaa or Syamananda Dasaa, who was given instruction by Jiva Gosvami in Vrndavana. Syamananda’s disciple was Rasikananda Murari, whose grandson and disciple was Nayanananda Deva Gosvami. His disciple was Radha Damodara, a great scholar born in Kanyakubja (Kanauja) who wrote the well-reputed text, Vedanta-syamantaka.12 Baladeva, who won renown as the Bhasyakara for his elaborate exposition of the Vedanta-sutra according to the Gaudiya understanding, was initiated by Radha Damodara Gosvami.

Srila Prabhupada adds,

‘Sri Uddhava Dasa or Uddhara Dasa was the follower of the author of the Govinda-bhasya, Baladeva Vidyabhusana. Uddhava Dasa, Madhusudana Dasa and Jagannatha Dasa Babaji, all of whom adopted the lifestyle of the paramahamsa, followed him in preaching the path of pure devotion through their example. In the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya, these saints are the objects of the greatest faith and reverence.’

This Jagannatha Dasa Babaji, who was known widely as vaisnava-sarvabhauma or ‘universal monarch of the Vaisnavas,’ is our predecessor acarya, who gave direction to Bhaktivinoda Thakura.

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu recognized the Bhagavatam to be the genuine commentary on the Vedantaand thus considered it unnecessary to write a separate explanation of the Brahma Sutras. The Garuda-purana in particular states that the Bhagavatam is the explanation of the Vedanta-sutra, theMahabharata and other historical epics; it gives the meaning of the Gayatri mantra and all the Vedic literature. However, there came a time when, by the wish of the Lord, the acaryas of the Ramanujasampradaya in the Galta village of Jaipur created a lot of trouble by denying the validity of the Gaudiya school, which managed the service to the Govindaji deity in Jaipur, saying that it had no historical basis. They accused the Gaudiyas of not having a tie to any one of the four Vaisnava disciplic successions.

Though the King of Jaipur was a Gaudiya Vaisnava, he was troubled by their arguments. Word came to Visvanatha Cakravarti in Vrndavana, who was the most prominent acarya of the Gaudiya school at the time. Due to his advanced age, however, Visvanatha was unable to defend the sampradaya’s reputation, but sent his dear student, Baladeva Vidyabhusana and a disciple, Krsnadeva Sarvabhauma, in his place.

When the king saw these two poverty-stricken monks, he had his doubts that they would be able to debate with the learned scholars of the Ramanuja sampradaya. However, his anxiety was soon dispelled when he witnessed the profound scholarship of the two ascetics. Nevertheless, it was decided that until the Gaudiya school had a commentary of its own on the Vedanta, based on the three reliable sources (prasthana-traya) of scripture—the Sruti, the Smrti and the Sutras, it would not be accepted as a legitimate sampradaya.

Baladeva asked the accusers for some time—seven days according to some, three months according to others—to write a Gaudiya commentary on the Vedanta. He then went to the Govindaji temple and prayed earnestly to the Lord, ‘O Lord, O Govindaji! I am a follower of your dear companions, Svarupa Damodara and Rupa Gosvami. Please preserve their spiritual descendants and the honor of their line.’

On the first two nights, Baladeva received only minimal directions from the Lord and was not satisfied with what he had heard. On the third night, however, the Supreme Lord gave him his full mercy and reassured him that he would be able to achieve his goal. In a very short time, Baladeva completed writing his commentaries on the Upanisads, Vedanta-sutra, Bhagavad-gita and the Bhagavatam. He named his exposition of the Vedanta-sutra, Govinda-bhasya. This seems indeed appropriate, for it was by Lord Govindaji’s blessings and inspiration that Baladeva was able to accomplish this task.

The scholars of the other sampradayas were astonished by the quality of Baladeva’s commentary and were mollified by it. As a result, all opposition to accepting the Gaudiyas as a separate school orsampradaya stopped. This was the playful Lord Hari’s tricky way of bringing into existence a commentary on the Vedanta-sutras that would give joy to the Gaudiya Vaisnavas. It is said that whenever the Lord does anything, he accomplishes many purposes by it.

We believe that Baladeva Vidyabhusana, who was so blessed and dear to Lord Govinda, is sufficient authority to make an official statement on the disciplic succession and that his word should satisfy any honest and intelligent person that the Gaudiya sampradaya is genuine.

2 krsnera bhajana kahi samyag amnaya | adi-madhya-ante krsna-bhajana-bujhaya || ‘The most perfect strands of the Vedic literature as passed down in disciplic succession direct us to worship Krsna. From beginning to middle to end, they explain only the worship of Krsna.’

3 dharma-brahma-pratipadakapauruseya-vakyam vedah.

4 brahma-mukha-nirgata-dharma-jnapaka-sastram vedah.

5 Calcutta (Shyam Bazar): Sanskrit Sahitya Parishad, 1927.

6 Sivananda Sena had three sons, Caitanya Dasa, Sri Rama Dasa, and Sri Puri Dasa. Puri Dasa was given the name Kavi Karnapura by Lord Caitanya himself, when at the age of seven years, he recited a Sanskrit poem he had written himself (CC 3.16.65-75). It is said that this extraordinary ability came as the result of sucking Mahaprabhu’s toes as a baby (CC 3.12.50). Karnapura’s guru was Srinatha Cakravarti. He wrote ten books including Caitanya-carita-maha-kavya, Caitanya-candrodaya, Ananda-vrndavana-campu, Alankara-kaustubha, Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika, Brhad-ganoddesa-dipika, Arya-sataka, Caitanya-sahasra-nama, Sri-kesavastaka and a commentary on the Tenth Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam.

10 Nava-ratna, an even older text by Madhavendra Puri’s disciple Hariram Vyasa, who lived in Vrndavana and was a contemporary of the Gosvamis, also contains a list of acaryas in the Brahma sampradaya. It is given as a citation from Sri-guru-pranalikoddesa:

The mission of Sri Gopinath Gaudiya Math is to help people understanding the value and purpose of this human birth and to inspire them to reach the ultimate goal of life through sincere spiritual practices, including chanting the Hare Krishna Mahamantra and serving the Lord's devotees under the guidance of a qualified spiritual master.